Lawmakers waging battles against open records

There have been comments made that this year's lame-duck session of the Legislature did not have much action, that the only thing of real interest was the maneuvering over a tuition-equality bill.

But there is something else this period between the election and the swearing-in of the new Legislature in January that some lawmakers are trying to accomplish, and it's not healthy.

In a series of seemingly small bills, some have declared open season on public information. If they have their way, you will know less than you did before.

The Legislature, in Hudson County Democratic Assemblyman Charles Mainor's own words, is "looking into removing some rights" from the state Open Public Records Act. No, he's not kidding.

Take, for example, S-3025, introduced by Sen. Joseph Vitale, D-Middlesex. This bill would add two members to the state Government Records Council, which is tasked with hearing disputes over public records requests. The bill would add either the president of the Municipal Clerks' Association or his or her designee. It would also add an unidentified member of the public to the council.

This all seems harmless enough, until you scratch at the surface a bit. Municipal clerks are often the custodians of records in their towns, so placing the head of their professional organization on the council allows that individual to sit in judgment on whether a colleague has complied with the law. That person would also decide whether a custodian of record should be fined for violations. The potential for conflict is huge.

The New Jersey Press Association sought to mitigate this issue by recommending that the unidentified public person be instead an appointment of the NJPA president, which would add a voice on the side of those who often seek public records. The NJPA's recommendation, however, was ignored in last week's committee hearing.

Another bill being considered is S-3056, introduced by state Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union. That measure would exempt traffic summonses from the state Open Public Records Act. The reasoning behind the bill is that attorneys mine the list of traffic summonses and send letters to those ticketed in an effort to drum up business.

"Persons receiving these solicitations are often greatly embarrassed that their traffic ticket seems to be a matter of extensive public knowledge and concern," reads the statement accompanying the bill.

In addition to the unwise notion that the Legislature should be in the business of preventing people from getting their feelings hurt, Scutari's bill stomps all over the function of the judiciary. Attorney behavior is regulated by the state Supreme Court. Also, the traffic summonses are court records, and the availability of them is also regulated by the judiciary, not the Legislature.

This bill was pulled, most likely because it was fraught with these types of issues, but Scutari promised at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that it would be back in an amended form on Monday.

A third example of the Legislature's battle against the public is the bill that would ban mug shots of suspected criminals from being released. This one is Mainor's bill. In addition to the silliness of trying to remove identifying material from the public domain, this bill smacks of a vendetta against the press, which has called Mainor out for injudicious posts on his Facebook page.

And, while a lot of the action in this effort to make you less well informed is taking place in the Legislature, the administration of Gov. Chris Christie has gotten in on the act with inaction.

As detailed in an Asbury Park Press story last week, the administration has been sitting on a public records request for more than five months. The oddity of this is that the governor's people acknowledge the information sought is public record, but they still have not released all of the documents.

Why does this matter?

Press Executive Editor Hollis R. Towns hit the nail squarely on the head in his response to the administration's failure to release the records.

"Withholding public records that, by law, have to be released is just government censorship by another name," he said.

I would add that trying to change the law to further a secretive and less responsive government amounts to censorship, too.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Lawmakers waging battles against open records

There have been comments made that this year's lame-duck session of the Legislature did not have much action, that the only thing of real interest was the maneuvering over a tuition-equality bill.

A link to this page will be included in your message.

Real Deals

Sales, coupons, circulars and more from your favorite Morris County area retailers.